// return the character at position n
value_type at(size_type n) const
{ wxASSERT_VALID_INDEX( n ); return m_pchData[n]; }
- value_type operator[](size_type n) const { return at(n); }
// returns the writable character at position n
reference at(size_type n)
{ wxASSERT_VALID_INDEX( n ); CopyBeforeWrite(); return m_pchData[n]; }
- reference operator[](size_type n)
- { wxASSERT_VALID_INDEX( n ); CopyBeforeWrite(); return m_pchData[n]; }
// lib.string.modifiers
// append elements str[pos], ..., str[pos+n]
// data access (all indexes are 0 based)
// read access
wxChar GetChar(size_t n) const
- { return operator[](n); }
+ { return at(n); }
// read/write access
wxChar& GetWritableChar(size_t n)
- { return operator[](n); }
+ { return at(n); }
// write access
void SetChar(size_t n, wxChar ch)
- { operator[](n) = ch; }
+ { at(n) = ch; }
// get last character
wxChar Last() const
{
wxASSERT_MSG( !IsEmpty(), _T("wxString: index out of bounds") );
- return operator[](length() - 1);
+ return at(length() - 1);
}
// get writable last character
wxChar& Last()
{
wxASSERT_MSG( !IsEmpty(), _T("wxString: index out of bounds") );
- return operator[](length() - 1);
+ return at(length() - 1);
}
/*
- So why do we have all these overloaded operator[]s? A bit of history:
- initially there was only one of them, taking size_t. Then people
- started complaining because they wanted to use ints as indices (I
- wonder why) and compilers were giving warnings about it, so we had to
- add the operator[](int). Then it became apparent that you couldn't
- write str[0] any longer because there was ambiguity between two
- overloads and so you now had to write str[0u] (or, of course, use the
- explicit casts to either int or size_t but nobody did this).
-
- Finally, someone decided to compile wxWin on an Alpha machine and got
- a surprize: str[0u] didn't compile there because it is of type
- unsigned int and size_t is unsigned _long_ on Alpha and so there was
- ambiguity between converting uint to int or ulong. To fix this one we
- now add operator[](uint) for the machines where size_t is not already
- the same as unsigned int - hopefully this fixes the problem (for some
- time)
-
- The only real fix is, of course, to remove all versions but the one
- taking size_t...
+ Note that we we must define all of the overloads below to avoid
+ ambiguity when using str[0]. Also note that we don't need const
+ version of operatorp[] at all as indexed access to const string
+ is provided by implicit conversion to "const wxChar *" below.
*/
- // operator version of GetChar
- wxChar operator[](int n) const
- { return wxStringBase::operator[](n); }
+ // operator versions of GetWriteableChar()
+ wxChar& operator[](int n)
+ { return wxStringBase::at(n); }
wxChar& operator[](size_type n)
- { return wxStringBase::operator[](n); }
- wxChar operator[](size_type n) const
- { return wxStringBase::operator[](n); }
+ { return wxStringBase::at(n); }
#ifndef wxSIZE_T_IS_UINT
- // operator version of GetChar
- wxChar operator[](unsigned int n) const
- { return wxStringBase::operator[](n); }
-
- // operator version of GetWriteableChar
wxChar& operator[](unsigned int n)
- { return wxStringBase::operator[](n); }
+ { return wxStringBase::at(n); }
#endif // size_t != unsigned int
// implicit conversion to C string